ABSTRACT
With COVID-19 no longer categorized as a public health emergency of international concern, vaccination strategies and priority groups for vaccination have evolved. Africa Centers for Diseases Prevention and Control proposed the ‘100-100-70%’ strategy which aims to vaccinate all healthcare workers, all vulnerable groups, and 70% of the general population. Understanding whether healthcare workers were reached during previous vaccination campaigns and what can be done to address concerns, anxieties, and other influences on vaccine uptake, will be important to optimally plan how to achieve these ambitious targets. In this mixed-methods study, between June 2021 and July 2022 a quantitative survey was conducted with healthcare workers accessing a comprehensive health check in Zimbabwe to determine whether and, if so, when they had received a COVID-19 vaccine. Healthcare workers were categorized as those who had received the vaccine ‘early’ (before 30.06.2021) and those who had received it ‘late’ (after 30.06.2021). In addition, 17 in-depth interviews were conducted to understand perceptions and beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines. Of the 2905 healthcare workers employed at 37 facilities who participated in the study, 2818 (97%, 95% CI [92%-102%]) reported that they had received at least one vaccine dose. Geographical location, older age, higher educational attainment and having a chronic condition was associated with receiving the vaccine early. Qualitatively, (mis)information, infection risk perception, quasi-mandatory vaccination requirements, and legitimate concerns such as safety and efficacy influenced vaccine uptake. Meeting the proposed 100-100-70 target entails continued emphasis on strong communication while engaging meaningfully with healthcare workers’ concerns. Mandatory vaccination may undermine trust and should not be a substitute for sustained engagement.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the Global Public Health strand of the Elizabeth Blackwell Institute for Health Research, funded under the University of Bristol’s QR GCRF strategy (ref:H100004-148) as well as support from Sheffield and Oxford QR-GCRF funds. It was supported by UK aid from the UK government (FCDO) (ref 668 303), and by funding from the government of Canada. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the policies of the respective governments. RAF is funded by a Wellcome Trust Senior Fellowship (206316_Z_17_Z). IDO has received funding through the Wellcome Trust Clinical PhD Programme awarded to the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (grant number 203905/Z/16/Z). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Tinotenda Taruvinga is supported by the Fogarty International Centre of the National Institutes of Health (NIM Bethesda, Maryland, MD, USA) under Award Number D43 TW009539. The content therein is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Not Applicable
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethical approval was obtained from the Medical Research Council Zimbabwe (MRCZ/A/2627) the Biomedical Research and Training Institute and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine ethics committees (22514). For healthcare workers accessing the health check service and responding to the quantitative questionnaire verbal informed consent was obtained. The Medical Research Council Zimbabwe waived the necessity for a written informed consent to facilitate access to the service. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants for participation in the in-depth interviews.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Not Applicable
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Not Applicable
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Not Applicable
Data Availability
Data are available on reasonable request. The data will be made available on London School of Hygiene and Tropica Medicine (LSHTM) Data Compass within 12 months of publication
